USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “North American Journal of Fisheries Management”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,662 records · Page 34Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Insights and strategic opportunities from the USGS 2024 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Interagency Workshop

Introduction In 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published Circular 1490 titled, “Integrated Science for the Study of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Environment: A Strategic Science Vision for the U.S. Geological Survey” (Tokranov and others, 2021). Circular 1490 was created to be a resource for USGS scientists prioritizing and planning research related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and to be a guide for developing partnerships with other scientists, State and Federal agencies, and stakeholders engaged in PFAS research and management and mitigation of the environmental and human-health effects of PFAS. This USGS PFAS Strategic Science Vision document was intended to be the foundation for a “living strategic vision,” periodically providing updates on the state of USGS PFAS research, emerging PFAS data gaps and needs, and progress on interagency and stakeholder PFAS partnerships and priorities. To meet this objective, the USGS planned to host an Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop every 2–3 years. During September 10–12, 2024, the USGS hosted the first Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop in Reston, Virginia. The Workshop brought together experts from other Federal agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Defense [Air Force, Army]), State agencies (Washington Fish and Wildlife, Virginia Department of Transportation), and academia (Harvard University, University of Maryland) to address key challenges relating to the measurement and modeling of PFAS and the implications for environmental health. Participants engaged in in-depth discussions centered around six pivotal topics related to PFAS: (1) sampling protocols, methods and interpretation; (2) environmental sources, source apportionment, and occurrence; (3) environmental fate and transport; (4) human and wildlife exposure routes and risk; (5) bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification; and (6) ecotoxicology and effects. Each topic had three breakout sessions. A recurrent theme of workshop discussions was how data on a nationwide scale for PFAS occurrence in various environmental matrices, including air, water, food crops, biota, soil, and streambed sediment could help to advance scientific understanding. Participants noted significant geospatial data gaps, particularly in the midwestern and southern United States and the Pacific Northwest. PFAS data collection tends to be more robust along the eastern seaboard and in California. Participants stressed how enhancing the integration of large and small datasets across various agencies could help to support national scale understanding of PFAS. To address these gaps, attendees suggested leveraging datasets from Federal entities like the USGS and the U.S. Department of Defense, State agencies, and municipal utility services to develop predictive contaminant detection and transport models. Improved coordination between water quality programs and USGS research could help to facilitate access to valuable data, leading to comprehensive databases that inform PFAS point (wastewater treatment plants and landfills) and nonpoint (runoff from land, atmospheric deposition, food packaging) sources, environmental transport mechanisms, environmental detection and concentrations, potential exposure routes, and health effects on different biota, including humans. A specific request was made to develop a map demarking the depth of modern (1953 or later) groundwater, which is susceptible to surface-derived anthropogenic (that is, human-made) contamination, based on tritium-age dating. Emphasis was placed on incorporation of hydrology, groundwater flow paths, groundwater–surface water interactions, and landscape factors in predictive statistical models as a step to improve contaminant source identification and tracking. Molecular fingerprinting approaches garnered attention as techniques to link specific PFAS mixtures detected in a sample to environmental sources and levels in biota (Dávila-Santiago and others, 2022). Integrating data from abiotic (that is, water, soil, and air) and biotic (that is, living organisms) systems identified as a research opportunity. For example, understanding the composition of soils and sediments, which include a mixture of mineral, plant, and animal components, could advance understanding of exposure pathways. The discussions highlighted opportunities to explore and understand the potential redistribution and biotic exposures of PFAS from biosolid and wastewater treatment plant effluent land application practices, in addition to atmospheric releases and discharges from landfill and wastewater treatment plants. Participants identified research gaps surrounding how these sources may contribute to contamination and may affect surrounding ecosystems, including a better definition of anthropogenic background concentrations. Moving forward, the collection of co-occurrence data was noted as a means to improve understanding of complex mixtures and to leverage companion modeling efforts focused on areas with high and low contamination levels to identify areas of concern and unaffected resources. Participants emphasized how centralized USGS databases and the establishment of sample-metadata archives can help to ensure that samples are preserved and accessible for future research. In conclusion, the workshop participants identified opportunities to bridge data gaps and improve measurement techniques, modeling frameworks, databases, and communication, to enhance the understanding of PFAS and their effects on environmental and human health. Upon completion of the workshop, participants indicated an interest in developing strategic data collection, modeling, and analytical approaches to address these challenges.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2024

Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the Mojave Basin Domestic-Supply Aquifer study unit, 2018—California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Groundwater quality in the western part of the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California, was investigated in 2018 as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project. The Mojave Basin Domestic-Supply Aquifer study unit (MOBS) region was divided into two study areas—floodplain and regional—to assess differences between the two major aquifers used for drinking water supply in the area. This assessment characterized the quality of ambient groundwater and not the quality of treated drinking water. The study included three components: (1) a status assessment, which characterized the quality of groundwater resources used for domestic drinking-water supply in the floodplain and regional study areas; (2) a brief understanding assessment, which evaluated factors that could potentially affect the quality of groundwater used by domestic wells in the region; and (3) a comparative assessment between the groundwater resources used by domestic wells and public-supply wells in the two study areas. The domestic-well assessment was based on data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey from 48 domestic wells in January–May 2018. The public-supply assessment was based on data for samples from 322 public-supply wells in 2008–18, either collected by the U.S. Geological Survey or compiled from the California State Water Resources Control Boards Division of Drinking Water publicly available database. Concentrations of water-quality constituents in ambient groundwater were compared to regulatory and non-regulatory benchmarks typically used by the State of California and Federal agencies as health-based or aesthetic standards for public drinking water. Relative concentrations, defined as the measured concentration divided by the benchmark concentration, were classified as high (greater than 1.0), moderate (greater than 0.5 for inorganic constituents or 0.1 for organic and special-interest constituents, and not high), or low (concentrations lower than moderate). The floodplain and regional study areas were divided into 15 and 35 grid cells, respectively, and grid-based methods were used to compute the areal proportions of the two study areas with high, moderate, or low relative concentrations of individual constituents and classes of constituents. For the domestic-supply assessment, one or more inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks were detected at high relative concentrations in 58 percent of the regional study area and 13 percent of the floodplain study area. The inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks detected at high relative concentrations in the regional study area were arsenic, chromium and hexavalent chromium, fluoride, adjusted gross alpha particle activity, uranium, molybdenum, strontium, and nitrate; only arsenic was detected at high relative concentrations in the floodplain study area. One or more inorganic constituents with secondary maximum contaminant level benchmarks were detected at high concentrations in 15 and 6.7 percent of the regional and floodplain study areas, respectively. The constituents detected at high relative concentrations in the regional study area were total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, and iron; only total dissolved solids and sulfate were detected at high relative concentrations in the floodplain study area. Organic constituents were not detected at moderate or high relative concentrations in either the regional or floodplain study areas. Volatile organic compounds were detected at low relative concentrations in 21 and 27 percent of the regional and floodplain study areas, respectively, and pesticides were detected at low relative concentrations in 9.1 and 20 percent of the regional and floodplain study areas, respectively. The only individual organic constituent detected in more than 10 percent of either study area was the trihalomethane trichloromethane. Total coliform bacteria were detected in 15 and 27 percent of the grid wells in the regional and floodplain study areas, respectively. The greater prevalence of high relative concentrations of many inorganic constituents in the regional study area compared to the floodplain area likely indicates the greater diversity of geologic material at depth in aquifer material and generally finer-grained alluvium compared to the floodplain study area combined with generally older groundwater that has had more contact time with aquifer materials. In general, trace element concentrations (1) increased with increasing groundwater age, (2) increased with distance from recharge sources in the mountains, and (3) increased with closer proximity to some types of geological units. In general, groundwater from domestic wells in the floodplain study area is young, with most samples containing a component of modern groundwater based on tritium and unadjusted carbon-14 activities, whereas groundwater from domestic wells in the regional study area generally is old, with most samples having unadjusted carbon-14 ages of 5,000–40,000 years. Public-supply wells in MOBS generally were deeper than domestic wells and presumably are in contact with older, more weathered alluvium that may have more mobile trace elements, such as arsenic or uranium. However, only 26 percent of the public-supply regional study area had high relative concentrations of inorganic constituents, compared to 58 percent for the domestic regional study area. The percentages of the public-supply and domestic floodplain study areas with high relative concentrations of inorganic constituents were 11 and 13 percent, respectively. The ages of groundwater used by public-supply and domestic wells in each study area were similar, which was not expected given the greater depth of the public-supply wells. Three potential factors may contribute to these results: (1) greater spatial footprint of domestic well network, which may result in domestic wells pumping groundwater from fractured bedrock or mineralized areas not used by public-supply wells; (2) greater pumping rates in public-supply wells, resulting in more water being withdrawn from coarse-grained, heterogeneous alluvium than finer-grained layers, which may have higher concentrations of (or more mobile) inorganic constituents; and (3) a greater degree of well management with public-supply wells, which may include pausing use of or decommissioning wells if treating or blending water is not feasible to lower constituent concentrations.

California↗
USGS2025

Groundwater hydrology, groundwater and surface-water interactions, water quality, and groundwater-flow simulations for the Wet Mountain Valley alluvial aquifer, Custer and Fremont Counties, Colorado, 2017–19

In 2017, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, began a study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Wet Mountain Valley alluvial aquifer, Custer and Fremont Counties, Colorado. The study included collection of data pertaining to groundwater hydrology, groundwater and surface-water interactions, and water quality in the alluvial aquifer. In addition to providing foundational information on the hydrology of the alluvial aquifer, a numerical groundwater-flow model was developed to estimate the potential effects of additional storage of groundwater in the alluvial aquifer. Groundwater-level elevation data from 30 wells were used to estimate groundwater-flow directions in the alluvial aquifer, which were generally from the southwest to northeast, away from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and towards perennial streams in the center of the valley. Although some seasonal variation was apparent in groundwater-level elevation records, no statistically significant seasonal trends were indicated. Statistically significant long-term trends were indicated in groundwater-level elevation records for 8 of the 30 wells, and of these wells with statistically significant trends, all but 1 indicated a negative trend of groundwater-level elevations. Spatial evaluation of wells with statistically significant negative groundwater-level elevation trends showed many are in areas of denser well drilling for domestic or other uses, indicating increasing groundwater use could potentially be causing groundwater-level elevation declines. There were instances of wells with no statistically significant groundwater-level elevation trends also located in areas of greater density of well completions. Additional investigations may be necessary to more fully characterize the processes responsible for negative groundwater-level elevation trends. Streamflow gain or loss calculations were completed for low flow in 2017–19 and for high flow in 2018 in nine reaches of streams within the study area. Stream reaches of the upper Texas Creek, upper Grape Creek, upper-middle Grape Creek, and Taylor Creek displayed consistent streamflow loss in each period from 2017 to 2019. These stream reaches represent long-term sources of recharge to the alluvial aquifer. Streamflow gain or loss varies through time in other stream reaches (lower Texas Creek, lower-middle Grape Creek, lower Grape Creek below Westcliffe, and lower Grape Creek above DeWeese Reservoir). The temporally variable behavior indicates these stream reaches may be sources of groundwater recharge or areas of groundwater discharge, likely depending on temporal dynamics between the elevation of the water table and the stream. Water-quality samples were collected from 10 groundwater wells and 10 stream sites during September through November 2019. All groundwater and stream samples were analyzed for major and trace elements and stable isotopes of water. A subset of groundwater samples was also analyzed for the environmental tracers sulfur hexafluoride, tritium, and noble gases. Comparison of water-quality results to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water-quality standards indicated no constituents exceeded primary standards for human health. Spatial evaluation of water quality indicated the concentrations of various constituents are likely controlled by groundwater and surface-water interactions and by spatial variability in bedrock geology underlying the alluvial aquifer. Specifically, streams shown to gain from groundwater had water chemistry constituent compositions similar to groundwater, whereas streams exiting the Sangre de Cristo Mountains tended to have compositions consistent with snowmelt. Groundwater geochemistry appeared to be partially controlled by oxidation-reduction processes and by proximity to igneous rocks in the Wet Mountains. Environmental tracers used to estimate groundwater age indicated all sampled groundwater contained tracers representing modern recharge (approximately less than 65 years old) but mixing of premodern recharge (approximately more than 65 years old) also occurs. Spatial evaluation of environmental tracers indicated large faults may be conduits for upwelling of older groundwater. No trends were observed in groundwater age with well depth, indicating all sampled wells are located within the zone of active groundwater flow. The presence of modern groundwater in wells with statistically significant negative groundwater-level elevation trends indicates groundwater storage depletions may be partially offset by capture of modern recharge. Repeated sampling of groundwater age would be necessary, however, to determine if any trends in groundwater age exist, which may indicate changing groundwater recharge, storage, or discharge. Additional investigations could also consider quantifying groundwater age in deeper wells to more fully define the depth of active groundwater flow. A numerical groundwater-flow model was developed to estimate components of the water budget, simulate groundwater and surface-water interactions, and evaluate the potential effects of aquifer storage and recovery. Simulated groundwater-level elevations from the calibrated groundwater-flow model are similar to the observed pattern of groundwater-level elevations with higher elevations in the western part of the study area along the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Simulated water-budget components indicate most of the recharge to the alluvial aquifer is derived from streamflow losses, which is consistent with observations of losing streams along the mountain front. The largest groundwater discharge component of the alluvial aquifer was to streams in the center of the valley, where observations of stream gain or loss indicated the predominance of gaining conditions. Comparison of groundwater and surface-water interactions between the calibrated groundwater-flow model for 2000-19 (the base-case model) and a simulation including additional recharge, representing potential aquifer storage and recovery operations, indicated the additional recharge distributed throughout the area had minimal effects on streamflow in the nearby Grape Creek. An analysis of subregional groundwater budgets showed approximately 54 percent of the additional recharge flowed back to nearby Grape Creek, and the other 46 percent was distributed laterally into adjacent cells in the alluvial aquifer. The comparison of simulations and subregional water budget show the additional recharge did not substantially alter groundwater-level elevations or basin wide groundwater storage. Although the analysis of additional recharge provided in the numerical groundwater-flow model considers only one of many possible recharge scenarios, the model provides a useful tool that could be modified for various scenarios to understand potential effects of managed aquifer recharge.

Colorado↗
USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
USGS2026

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗
USGS1999

The effects of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater on the geological framework and correlation of hydrogeologic units of the lower York-James Peninsula, Virginia

This report documents the highly variable structure, stratigraphy, and buried topography of the outer rim of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater created by its impact and burial. Lithologies of cores are correlated with borehole geophysical logs to characterize the physical properties of the stratigraphic units and their geophysical signatures. The correlation between cores, well cuttings, and borehole geophysical logs is augmented with seismic-reflection data, and these data are compiled into a lithostratigraphic cross section that illustrates the geological framework of the lower York-James Peninsula and immediate surrounding areas.

Virginia↗
USGS2026

Methodology for construction of a three-layer geologic model of the conterminous United States using land surface, top of bedrock, and top of basement

This report describes the methodology used for the construction of a digital three-layer geologic model of the conterminous United States by mapping the altitude of three surfaces: land surface, the top of bedrock, and the top of basement. These surfaces are mapped through the compilation and synthesis of published stratigraphic horizons from numerous topical studies. The mapped surfaces create a three-layer geologic model with three geomaterial-based subdivisions: unconsolidated to weakly consolidated sediment; layered consolidated rock strata that constitute bedrock; and crystalline rocks that are described as “basement,” consisting of either igneous, metamorphic, or highly deformed rocks. The data compilation and synthesis are highly dependent on the definition of the informal terms “bedrock” and “basement,” which may describe different ages or types of rock in different parts of the conterminous United States. This report presents the conceptualization of the three mapped layers, describes the datasets used, and summarizes the decisions made while compiling the three-layer model from the various sources. This digital dataset was created as part of efforts by the U.S. Geological Survey to develop subsurface geologic data in geospatial form as part of a broad directive to develop two-dimensional and three-dimensional geologic information at detailed, national, and continental scales. This digital dataset partly fulfills the goal of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program to construct a national-scale three-dimensional geologic model.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2026

Production of mineral commodities and geospatial map of the mineral industries and related infrastructure of China

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) mission to distribute global mineral information and analyze supply chains, this study provides a comprehensive review of the global significance of China’s mineral production and capacity in 2023. Of 77 mineral commodities in the USGS dataset, China produced 74 and was the world’s first-ranked producer for 39 of the 74. Compared to the high share of global mineral production, including up to 98 percent of global gallium production, the country’s share of global mineral reserves was relatively small, ranging from 20 percent (zinc ore) to 52 percent (tungsten ore). China’s imports of metal ores, slag, and ash accounted for 64 percent of global imports of such commodities by value. The country’s exports of base metals and articles of base metal accounted for 17 percent of the global exports. To help nongeographic information system users assess the spatial distribution of mineral mines, processing facilities, and ports for trades in China, this study created a geospatial (also called “georeferenced”) portable document format (GeoPDF) map. In addition, the GeoPDF contains mineral resource tracts (such as antimony, copper, potash, coal, and oil and gas), exploration sites, and energy infrastructure based on the preexisting USGS data.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Methodology for compilation of previously published contour data showing the altitude of the base of Dakota Sandstone on the Colorado Plateau, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah

Structure contours and other geologic information from numerous published geologic maps were digitized and compiled into a digital dataset showing the configuration of a single stratigraphic datum, the base of the Dakota Sandstone and its equivalents across the Colorado Plateau. The principal maps compiled in digital form are a series of 1:250,000-scale 1 degree (°) × 2° quadrangle maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey, augmented by other geologic maps published at various map scales. The compiled digital dataset contains geologic map polygons of the Dakota Sandstone and regional stratigraphic equivalents, the location of faults and fold axes, structure contour lines that define the altitude of the base of the unit and bedding orientation data computed from the structure contour lines. This report provides the scientific rationale for compilation of these data and describes the compilation methodology for each of the data elements. This report provides an extended description of the data compilation in a companion U.S. Geological Survey digital data release of spatial data and attributes associated with the contoured surface and associated geologic data layers.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah↗